Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23066 (AP)

Sri Ragavendra Oil and Agro Products, v. The Southern Power Distribution Company Limited.

WP/18437/2013 · 2025-07-31

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010325702013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 18437/2013 Between: 1. SRI RAGAVENDRA OIL AND AGRO PRODUCTS,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GRANDHI PUNNIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BUSINESS, RIO CHEBROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (SERVICE CONNECTION NO.HT.GNT.800) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, (APCPDCL) REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE AT 4/7 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, APSPDCL, 4/7 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. 3. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OPERATION CIRCLE, APCPDCL, 4/7 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, APSPDCL, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, APSPDCL, RURAL-II, TENALI, GUTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE A P ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, SINGARENI BHAVAN, REDHILLS, HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER C.O. DT. 11-7-13 IN WPMP 23132 OF 13 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIJAYA KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: When this Writ Petition was listed on 28.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. This Court had directed the matter to be listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Since this matter is of the year 2013, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 4. However, there shall be a direction to the Registry to preserve the record for a period of eight (08) weeks from today in order to enable the parties to file an appropriate Application for Restoration, if the Writ Petitioner is of the opinion that the cause of action still survives. 5. If such Application is not filed within the fixed time, the Registry is at liberty to destroy the record four (04) weeks after the expiry of the said twelve (08) weeks period. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 01.08.2025 DSV 147 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 18437/2013 01.08.2025 DSV HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 18437/2013 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 20. 01.08.2025 GRKP, J Writ Petition is dismissed for Non prosecution. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV